Today I was told that those paying market rent at BC Housing were informed that their rents are going up from $675 to $1200 for a 3 bedroom, does anyone know if this is true?
would not surprise me as they removed the rental max some time ago
prior to the boom market rate would of been much lower than now. however many would likely qualify to be subsidized back to the 33% of gross household income.
the notices are likely are to bring in all proof of income as now market rent is a lot higher therefore unless the house hold makes more than 3x 1200 they should not have to pay that much
BC Housing is managed by Makola in Rupert
I can understand them hoping that the rent increase would encourage those people paying the max to find other housing, which in turn would open up more of theirs for those in more financial need. My concern lies in the fact that there are plenty of families this will affect and cannot afford even $1000 rents, so what are they to do? Will they end up renting the place the new BC Housing tenant got reno-evicted out of for $300-500 more a month than the previous tenant? I really feel for the people that have to rent in this town as they are at the mercy of landlords and whatever prices they want to charge now.
This town has to start thinking outside the box on housing. What have we got little of, land for housing. You can develop the harbor for housing, more specifically the butze basin. What’s wrong with floating housing? Has it ever been studied?
Other than for new tenancies that is simply not true. Rental increases for existing tenancies are regulated by law. < www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/topic.page?id … 0Increases >. The maximum allowable increase this year is 2.2%.
Why some tenants refuse to go to Service BC and pick up the information packages and dispute resolution forms, or talk to an officer on the phone, is incomprehensible. It’s like they are choosing to be taken advantage of.
If market rate rents change it could be exempt from the 2.2 percent law however:
the thing is that a 33% of income rule is in effect at BCH or market rent whatever is less, however things seem to be changing from day to day
With a reno eviction it’s 2 months notice but i did not think BCH could do that unless they had an alternative place for someone to move
[quote=“jamesbrown”]If market rate rents change it could be exempt from the 2.2 percent law however:
…
With a reno eviction it’s 2 months notice but i did not think BCH could do that unless they had an alternative place for someone to move[/quote]
A landlord can lawfully increase rents beyond the maximum due to market rent changes only by applying for dispute resolution and with the director’s approval: s43 < bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/ … 8_01#part3 >. The tenant is free to argue against the increase and can file for dispute resolution if the landlord fails to comply with the procedures in the Residential Tenancy Act.
The director may grant, refuse, phase in, or defer an increase: s23 of the regulation, which also governs the factors to be considered < bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/ … #section23 >.
Reno evictions under s49(6)(b) require proper notice under s52, and all permits and approvals have to be in place. The tenant is deemed to agree if they do not file for a dispute under s49, particularly to ensure that the landlord has applied for and received a building permit. If they have not, the eviction will fail.
If the landlord has done things properly and there is no dispute, the tenant is entitled to two months notice AND is owed equivalent to one month’s rent: s51(1), an entitlement that is all too often overlooked. That would of course be in addition to a refund of their deposit (assuming no counterclaims, which can also be disputed).
If the landlord does not carry out the renos within a reasonable time the tenant can claim equivalent to two months rent, again by filing a dispute if the landlord refused to pay: s52(2) < < bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/ … on_d2e3537 >.
As for “public” or"subsidized" housing, apart from anything else the public housing body can terminate the tenancy if the tenant no longer qualifies: s49.1. I don’t see any separate rules regarding rent increases, but as with everything else a tenant would be well advised to go to Service BC, get the information or use one of the internal lines there to talk to an officer.
[quote=“BTravenn”]
[quote=“jamesbrown”]If market rate rents change it could be exempt from the 2.2 percent law however:
…
With a reno eviction it’s 2 months notice but i did not think BCH could do that unless they had an alternative place for someone to move[/quote]
A landlord can lawfully increase rents beyond the maximum due to market rent changes only by applying for dispute resolution and with the director’s approval: s43 < bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/ … 8_01#part3 >. The tenant is free to argue against the increase and can file for dispute resolution if the landlord fails to comply with the procedures in the Residential Tenancy Act.
The director may grant, refuse, phase in, or defer an increase: s23 of the regulation, which also governs the factors to be considered < bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/ … #section23 >.
Reno evictions under s49(6)(b) require proper notice under s52, and all permits and approvals have to be in place. The tenant is deemed to agree if they do not file for a dispute under s49, particularly to ensure that the landlord has applied for and received a building permit. If they have not, the eviction will fail.
If the landlord has done things properly and there is no dispute, the tenant is entitled to two months notice AND is owed equivalent to one month’s rent: s51(1), an entitlement that is all too often overlooked. That would of course be in addition to a refund of their deposit (assuming no counterclaims, which can also be disputed).
If the landlord does not carry out the renos within a reasonable time the tenant can claim equivalent to two months rent, again by filing a dispute if the landlord refused to pay: s52(2) < < bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/ … on_d2e3537 >.
As for “public” or"subsidized" housing, apart from anything else the public housing body can terminate the tenancy if the tenant no longer qualifies: s49.1. I don’t see any separate rules regarding rent increases, but as with everything else a tenant would be well advised to go to Service BC, get the information or use one of the internal lines there to talk to an officer.[/quote]
thanks I am well versed in the tenancy act however many are not
Honestly cant see a government agency BCH going against BC tenancy act but it’s good to inquire Makola Housing is acting as property manager … its a mess and what often happens with private landlords is the reno evicting to get around the 2.2% increase rule and simply get a new tenant that can afford it… I know a senior with a decent but not high income in private rental that now has to relocate out of the NW as nothing can be found for under 1000 + util …
Sad when the market changed so drastically all based on speculation re: LNG etc While I am not the biggest fan of Jennifer Rice she has raised this issue in Victoria. Not her fault if it falls on deaf hears from the Liberals
With BC Housing being bought out by Makola and now running all BCH Properties, Can’t they bring
in rent increases legally?
[quote=“woodnfood”]With BC Housing being bought out by Makola and now running all BCH Properties, Can’t they bring
in rent increases legally?[/quote]
they are property agent they did not get bought out and only in a few communities it is the case nothing changed in Terrace. Of course they can increase legally but again it is the case that tenant pay 33% of income or market rent whatever is less… I just get the feeling that part of the story is missing…even in the private market if a new owner takes over the old agreements are still in affect and increases can only be within the increase cap, however we are seeing reno evictions throughout the NW
Is this what we have to look forward to as well?
Terrace’s shrinking vacancy rate and skyrocketing rental prices are hitting some families hard and forcing many into situations they never thought they’d be in. For one single mom and three kids, that means camping in a parking lot next to a busy highway in Terrace for $600 a month.
Daybreak Host Carolina de Ryk sits down with Associate Producer George Baker for a closer look.
audioboom.com/boos/2445689-terra … ve-on-rent
British Columbians are facing a serious “affordability crunch” when it comes to rental housing according to a new rental housing index released November 17th. The province-wide index is based on a survey of 517,000 rental households in B.C. conducted by B.C.'s Non-Profit Housing Association, which represents the social housing sector.
Executive director Tony Roy says nearly a quarter of B.C. households that rent are spending more than half their gross income on rent and utilities. “That’s a huge proportion of renters that are in what I would categorize as crisis level of spending,” says Roy.
Prince Rupert:
Number of renter households: 1,990
Average rent + utilities: $988
Average % of income spent on rent + utilities: 24%
Percentage of households paying more than 30% of income on rent: 45%
Percentage of households paying more than 50% of income on rent: 23%
23% doesn’t seem like a lot. but that is nearly 500 households that are paying more than 50% of income on rent and that is not acceptable.
Full time minimum wage works out to net 1500 per month. Raising a family on that isn’t going to happen but a single person could scrape by even paying 900/month.
You could still eat well and probably even afford Internet access with your remaining 600.00/month. You can’t have a car or any other luxuries but you can get by.
How exactly is being able to get by on our lowest salary not acceptable again? I’d say that’s pretty good.
[quote=“jesus”]Full time minimum wage works out to net 1500 per month. Raising a family on that isn’t going to happen but a single person could scrape by even paying 900/month.
You could still eat well and probably even afford Internet access with your remaining 600.00/month. You can’t have a car or any other luxuries but you can get by.
How exactly is being able to get by on our lowest salary not acceptable again? I’d say that’s pretty good.[/quote]
So if you are a single parent with just one child and paying $1000 a month for a 2 bedroom I guess it just sucks to be you, is that what you are saying Jesus?
I would love to see a float house community developed down in Seal Cove, along the harbor where there is the one float house and barge already. I think in terms of cost a house on cedar log construction is cheapest and a concrete the most expensive.
If you look at the prices of float houses in Vancouver their cost seems to be quite affordable compared to traditional housing, depending on location of float house and the cost to moor at individual communities around the lower mainland.
I just had to share this video of Margy and Wayne Lutz, they were camping in Coastal British Columbia when they discovered their dream home, a float cabin on Powell Lake.
Why not floating apartment complexes?
[quote=“dafaceofanangel”]
I just had to share this video of Margy and Wayne Lutz, they were camping in Coastal British Columbia when they discovered their dream home, a float cabin on Powell Lake.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4suoDPC0ip8)
Beautiful location.[/quote]
No doubt we’ll end up with a cruise ship docked here for construction workers aswell like they ended up getting up in Kitimat…
[quote=“dafaceofanangel”]
[quote=“jesus”]Full time minimum wage works out to net 1500 per month. Raising a family on that isn’t going to happen but a single person could scrape by even paying 900/month.
You could still eat well and probably even afford Internet access with your remaining 600.00/month. You can’t have a car or any other luxuries but you can get by.
How exactly is being able to get by on our lowest salary not acceptable again? I’d say that’s pretty good.[/quote]
So if you are a single parent with just one child and paying $1000 a month for a 2 bedroom I guess it just sucks to be you, is that what you are saying Jesus?[/quote]
Yes that’s exactly what I’m saying. If that’s your situation then you either need to get a better paying job, get a second job, or move somewhere you can afford to live on minimum wage.
I really don’t understand why this is such a hard concept for people. Don’t get me wrong I feel everyone that contributes should be able to afford a roof over their head and food in their stomach but that doesn’t mean it’s going to necessarily where they want to live.
If you want to live in Vancouver or Kelowna or wherever on minimum wage good luck to you but we shouldn’t be subsidizing your poor choices. Same goes for rupert now. if you can’t afford it anymore then you gotta leave. People have been doing it for centuries. How many people in Canada left their home country for a better life? And you people complain about having to leave your town? You are not entitled to what you want because you want it.
[quote=“jesus”]
So if you are a single parent with just one child and paying $1000 a month for a 2 bedroom I guess it just sucks to be you, is that what you are saying Jesus?
Yes that’s exactly what I’m saying. If that’s your situation then you either need to get a better paying job, get a second job, or move somewhere you can afford to live on minimum wage.
I really don’t understand why this is such a hard concept for people. Don’t get me wrong I feel everyone that contributes should be able to afford a roof over their head and food in their stomach but that doesn’t mean it’s going to necessarily where they want to live.
If you want to live in Vancouver or Kelowna or wherever on minimum wage good luck to you but we shouldn’t be subsidizing your poor choices. Same goes for rupert now. if you can’t afford it anymore then you gotta leave. People have been doing it for centuries. How many people in Canada left their home country for a better life? And you people complain about having to leave your town? You are not entitled to what you want because you want it.[/quote]
I didn’t know Steven Harper posted here.
Social housing and benefits are meant to be for people who really cannot work for whatever reason. They are not meant to give us the option of living in a nice part of town that we can’t really afford, or supporting a lifestyle beyond our means. Jesus is right. If you want to live in your area of choice then simply earn the money to do so. If you choose to work in a low-paying job, thats your choice. There are so many opportunities for training and work in Canada - you just have to get off your butt and move where the jobs are.